We've heard a lot of angry talk from the political extremes during the current presidential campaign. Much harder to come by is the voice of the centrist, whose lack of self-righteous outrage too often gets misinterpreted as shoulder-shrugging apathy. Centrists are the large grouping of American voters who care deeply, but who don't see heat and fury as the best way to address our society's ills. I count myself among them.

By way of introduction, I'm the new editorial page editor of the Post-Dispatch. Which is not to suggest that I am somehow the voice of the newspaper. No single editor or writer represents our editorial position. We are all merely contributors to an ongoing conversation about the best ways to address problems, right wrongs and make our society better.

The editorials you read in this newspaper are unsigned because they represent the opinions of this institution. We strive for editorial consistency, which is why readers won't necessarily see a dramatic swing in editorial policy simply because a new editorial page editor is in place.

So why does it matter where I stand politically? The people shaping this newspaper's editorial voice take very seriously the words of Joseph Pulitzer that we print as The Platform at the bottom of each day's editorial page. Note the part about never belonging to any party and being "drastically independent."

Being a centrist doesn't mean not taking sides. It means fairly weighing the strongest arguments. We should leave no ambiguity on these pages where we stand once we've taken a stand, but also should be fair to those who disagree.

I've often told aspiring journalism students that my best training for this line of work was the year I spent on my high school debate team. Debaters learn to argue passionately no matter which side — the pro or the con — they're representing. Your goal as a debater is to make the judge believe you're absolutely committed to the cause you're defending, even if, two hours later, you'll be standing before a different judge making the exact opposite argument.

Our goal must be to persuade and convince, not beat the opponent into intellectual submission. Persuasion necessarily entails trying to see the argument from the other's point of view.

Whatever the hotly debated issue, be it gun control, abortion or immigration, the pro and con arguments are unquestionably heartfelt and passionate. But they're not necessarily the only arguments or even the best ones.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has lofty goals of universal, government-paid health care. But his position crumbles on the question of workability since his congressional backing would be close to nil. Donald Trump wants to build a border wall and deport all 11 million undocumented migrants living in the United States. No matter how much his supporters agree with him, it's a pipe dream. It'll never happen because it's logistically and financially impossible. He loses the argument.

We receive dozens of commentary submissions each week for the op-ed page. A few writers have been surprised when I've sent their work back to them with a simple request: Please don't just describe a problem or declare that something's wrong. Venture a solution. The easy job is complaining about a problem. The hard part is coming up with fixes.

Washington is in perpetual gridlock because too few are willing to venture solutions, and too many are building their careers by pointing out the flaws of their opponents' ideas. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama offered up workable, if imperfect, solutions to tackle serious problems facing this country. Mr. Bush offered up comprehensive immigration reform. Mr. Obama sought health care reform.

Opponents ranted. They shot down the immigration plan. They declared war on Obamacare. But at no time did they venture better solutions. That's what has to change in our political system.

Give solutions a chance. When readers see pieces such as the one we recently published by Gene and Cole McNary offering a road map to unify St. Louis County's 90 municipalities, my hope is that they'll see these ideas not as an invitation to a fight but rather as the start of a conversation aimed at addressing problems.

So, let the conversation begin.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH

Photo credit: Phil Roeder